Robert L. Miller appeals the district court's affirmance of the decision of
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his application
for supplemental security income payments.

Mr. Miller claimed disability beginning February 20, 2003, due to status
post spinal meningitis, hypertension, and reduced vision. The Administrative
Law Judge ("ALJ") denied benefits after finding that Mr. Miller did not have a
severe impairment or combination of impairments as is required at step two of the
five-step evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (describing
five-step
evaluation process). The Appeals Council considered the new medical evidence
Mr. Miller submitted after the hearing but nonetheless affirmed the ALJ's
decision.(1) We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
and we affirm.

In this appeal, Mr. Miller has raised the same issues he raised in the district
court, namely that the Commissioner (1) failed to make a proper evaluation at
step two of the sequential evaluation process, (2) failed to fully and fairly develop
the record, and (3) improperly assessed his credibility.

Mr. Miller's arguments are without merit. In its well-reasoned order, the
district court thoroughly analyzed each of Mr. Miller's claims using the same
standard of review that governs our review, see Aplt. App. Vol. I at 16-17, and
we find the district court's analysis and conclusions to be persuasive on each
point, id. at 18-22. Accordingly, we see no reason to repeat the district court's
analysis, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district
court's order.

2. After examining the briefs and appellate
record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1. After the hearing before the ALJ,
Mr. Miller was diagnosed with hepatitis.
Aplt. App. Vol. II at 144. This new evidence, along with other medical reports
presented to the Appeals Council, is part of the administrative record before us as
we evaluate the Commissioner's decision for substantial evidence. See O'Dell v.
Shalala, 44 F.3d 855, 859 (10th Cir. 1994).